CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s1A23316 { width:198.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 16356/11 Vasyl Mykolayovych CHECHELNYTSKYY against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15   December 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Faris Vehabović,   Carlo Ranzoni, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) The Court, having examined all the materials submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Yuryeva and Yuryev v. Ukraine , no. 3431/03, § 43, 31 July 2012), considers that the applicants’ complaints under this head are inadmissible since the length of the proceedings was not excessive or unreasonable. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 12 January 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention ( excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Representative name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Level of jurisdiction     16356/11 05/03/2011 Vasyl Mykolayovych CHECHELNYTSKYY 11/01/1960     08/10/2003     19/01/2005     22/07/2008   01/06/2004     16/11/2006     07/10/2010   7 months and 25 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   1 year, 9 months and 29 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   2 years, 2 months and 16 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     57247/12 17/08/2012 Yuriy Mykolayovych GONCHARUK 01/06/1966       09/10/2007   07/12/2012   5 years, 1 month and 29 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     27191/13 15/04/2013 Olena Anatoliyivna MURAVNYKOVA 11/12/1968     28/12/2006   24/09/2010   25/06/2008   14/12/2012   1 year, 5 months and 29 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   2 years, 2 months and 21 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     10667/15 15/02/2015 Sergiy Ivanovych MOLCHANOV 13/07/1960   Oleksandr Vasylyovych Mozhyn Odessa 05/03/2009   18/11/2014   5 years, 8 months and 14 days 3 levels of jurisdiction